Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-CA) boycott against Walgreens failed as predicted just a month ago. The Democratic governor planned to cut all state ties with the pharmacy giant because it refused to break the law in pro-life states and dispense abortion drugs but still planned to distribute them through pharmacies in blue states.

The company will be allowed to rebid on a contract to provide pharmaceuticals to the state’s prison system despite an initial decision by Newsom to try to bar Walgreens from renewing the agreement.

Furthermore, Walgreens cannot be barred from the state’s Medi-Cal program, which provides health insurance to low-income people. The threat was also ill-fated because other pharmacies that could have competed for that business, such as Costco and Rite Aid, have to follow the same laws as Walgreens. The company was making a purely legal decision, not anything grounded in an opposition to abortion.

“Newsom’s administration confirmed it will ‘continue to comply’ with federal law by paying Walgreens through Medi-Cal, which provides health coverage to roughly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities,” California Healthline reported . “Were California to stop covering Medi-Cal prescriptions filled at Walgreens stores, legal scholars warned, the state would run afoul of federal law, which allows patients to get their medications at any approved pharmacy.”

Newsom tried to save face by having his spokesman claim that tweets are not policy (even though the governor announced a policy and directed state agencies to review any deals with Walgreens).

“Tweeting is not policy,” Anthony York, a senior adviser on communications to the governor, told California Healthline.

Next time, before other pro-abortion rights politicians use Twitter to garner headlines and win retweets, they might consider the failure of similar boycott attempts.

For example, California legislators are considering rescinding a law that prohibits state-funded travel to states the attorney general deems unfriendly to LGBT people, such as those with laws against men competing against women in sports.

The new proposal happens to align nicely with Newsom’s obvious national ambitions . Instead of prohibiting state-funded travel, it would allow California to use taxpayer money to run advertisements in those more conservative states.

“The bill would provide that any media campaign funded pursuant to this project may … be on a national scale and, to the extent possible, may target audiences in a state or states” that pass laws with “the effect of voiding or repealing, an existing state or local protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

The current law has not succeeded in stopping states from passing conservative laws about bathrooms or sports, and Newsom brought taxpayer-funded security with him to Montana, one of the states on the no-fly list.

Newsom’s old stomping grounds of San Francisco has seen the failure of its political stunt as well.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has begun the process of repealing its red-state boycott after it failed to stop cities from implementing conservative policies and the city’s contracting costs grew by 20%.

Clearly, these boycotts are and will continue to be a failure.

I probably cannot convince pro-abortion rights politicians to change their minds on the matter of the sanctity of human life. But at least they might reconsider the wisdom of their political stunts.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.